On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:39:21PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 19 June 2014 at 20:38, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
> >> I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
> >> attached to an instance being migrated.  We noticed some unexpected
> >> behavior recently, whereby attached generic NFS-based volumes would become
> >> entirely unsparse over the course of a migration.  After spending some time
> >> reviewing the code paths in Nova, I'm more concerned that this was actually
> >> a minor symptom of a much more significant issue.
> >>
> >> For those unfamiliar, NFS-based volumes are simply RAW files residing on an
> >> NFS mount.  From Libvirt's perspective, these volumes look no different
> >> than root or ephemeral disks.  We are currently not filtering out volumes
> >> whatsoever when making the request into Libvirt to perform the migration.
> >>  Libvirt simply receives an additional flag (VIR_MIGRATE_NON_SHARED_INC)
> >> when a block migration is requested, which applied to the entire migration
> >> process, not differentiated on a per-disk basis.  Numerous guards within
> >> Nova to prevent a block based migration from being allowed if the instance
> >> disks exist on the destination; yet volumes remain attached and within the
> >> defined XML during a block migration.
> >>
> >> Unless Libvirt has a lot more logic around this than I am lead to believe,
> >> this seems like a recipe for corruption.  It seems as though this would
> >> also impact any type of volume attached to an instance (iSCSI, RBD, etc.),
> >> NFS just happens to be what we were testing.  If I am wrong and someone can
> >> correct my understanding, I would really appreciate it.  Otherwise, I'm
> >> surprised we haven't had more reports of issues when block migrations are
> >> used in conjunction with any attached volumes.
> >
> > Libvirt/QEMU has no special logic. When told to block-migrate, it will do
> > so for *all* disks attached to the VM in read-write-exclusive mode. It will
> > only skip those marked read-only or read-write-shared mode. Even that
> > distinction is somewhat dubious and so not reliably what you would want.
> >
> > It seems like we should just disallow block migrate when any cinder volumes
> > are attached to the VM, since there is never any valid use case for doing
> > block migrate from a cinder volume to itself.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel
> Just ran across this from bug
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1398999. Is there some way to
> signal to libvirt that some block devices shouldn't be migrated by it
> but instead are known to be networked etc? Or put another way, how can
> we have our cake and eat it too. Its not uncommon for a VM to be
> cinder booted but have local storage for swap... and AIUI the fix we
> put in for this bug stops those VM's being migrated. Do you think it
> is tractable (but needs libvirt work), or is it something endemic to
> the problem (e.g. dirty page synchronisation with the VM itself) that
> will be in the way?

It is merely a missing feature in libvirt that no one has had the
time to address yet.

|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to